Literature DB >> 17347539

Comparison of morbidity following the removal of mandibular third molar by lingual split, surgical bur and simplified split bone technique.

G Praveen1, P Rajesh, R S Neelakandan, C M Nandagopal.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The methods frequently used for surgical removal of impacted third molars are bur technique, lingual split and simplified split bone technique. The morbidity rates following the use of these different surgical techniques are not completely resolved. The use of a surgical method with minimum postoperative complication is needed. AIM: This study was conducted to compare the morbidity rates of the three different surgical techniques and their efficacy with regard to postoperative pain, swelling, labial and lingual sensation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients with a symptomatic impacted mandibular third molar with the age range of 14-62 years were divided into three groups of 30 patients each for surgical bur technique, lingual split technique and simplified split bone technique. All patients were operated by the same surgeon under local anesthesia (2% lignocaine) in the dental chair. The severity of pain and swelling was recorded on a visual analogue scale and the presence or absence of sensory disturbance at 6, 24, 48 hours and seven days after operation. The pain was scored according to a visual analogue 4-point scale. Patients were asked to indicate which side was more swollen and to record this assessment on the swelling scale.
RESULTS: Lingual split technique was more painful than the other two techniques. Surgical bur technique had more swelling than the other two techniques. Labial and lingual sensations were not altered in all the techniques.
CONCLUSION: The simplified split bone technique had the least morbidity than the lingual split and surgical bur technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17347539     DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.30916

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Dent Res        ISSN: 0970-9290


  8 in total

Review 1.  Impacted wisdom teeth.

Authors:  Thomas B Dodson; Srinivas M Susarla
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2010-04-08

Review 2.  Impacted wisdom teeth.

Authors:  Thomas B Dodson; Srinivas M Susarla
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2014-08-29

3.  "Piezosurgery vs bur in impacted mandibular third molar surgery: Evaluation of postoperative sequelae".

Authors:  Chirag Patil; Anendd Jadhav; Rajanikanth K; Nitin Bhola; Rajiv M Borle; Apoorva Mishra
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2019-06-12

4.  Adjacent tooth trauma in complicated mandibular third molar surgery: Risk degree classification and digital surgical simulation.

Authors:  Zhou-Xi Ye; Chi Yang; Jing Ge
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Piezosurgery versus Rotatory Osteotomy in Mandibular Impacted Third Molar Extraction.

Authors:  Bharat Bhati; Pankaj Kukreja; Sanjeev Kumar; Vidhi C Rathi; Kanika Singh; Shipra Bansal
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017 Jan-Jun

6.  Postsurgical consequences in lower third molar surgical extraction using micromotor and piezosurgery.

Authors:  Freddy Kersi Mistry; Nidarsh Diwakar Hegde; Mithra Nidarsh Hegde
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016 Jul-Dec

7.  Hard Tissue Preservation in Minimally Invasive Mandibular Third Molar Surgery Using In Situ Hardening TCP Bone Filler.

Authors:  Wilfried Engelke; Marcio Lazzarini; Víctor Beltrán
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-11-11       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

Authors:  Edmund Bailey; Wafa Kashbour; Neha Shah; Helen V Worthington; Tara F Renton; Paul Coulthard
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-07-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.